Chakwera’s appearance in Parliament for answering questions ; a gesture beyond mere political order 

Fundamentally, a constitutional order is a dominant set of not only institutions, but also principles. Political parties are inclusive in the set of institutions that map out constitutional order.

Constitutional order itself has been viewed by one particular scholar of Constitutional Law (Mark Tushnet in his paper: The New Constitutional Order) as “a stable set of institutions through which a nation’s fundamental decisions are made over a sustained period and principles that guide those decisions”

Granted this view, we quickly come to appreciate why political parties are integral to constitutional order of a country and why their manifesto-enshrined policies and offers should be understood with interest on the degree of bearing that they tilt themselves towards promotion of constitutional order and rule of law.

Further, I am not lost to the phenomenon whereby a manifesto may declare a thing and shamelessly abandon it when opportunity to implement is granted. This is called betrayal and has been the fate for Malawi in view of the intention to promote rule of law and preserve constitutional order over the past administrations. This is both political and constitutional disorders.

Fortunately, it appears the paradigm is now shifting with the incumbent President (Lazarus Chakwera) walking the talk in the area of promoting rule of law and constitutional order. To qualify the perspective, let us appreciate what the Constitution of the Republic of Malawi demands of the President in his capacity as a member of the Parliament. Wait a minute: Is a President a member of Parliament? In Constitutional sense YES.

Look: Section 49(1) of the Constitution states that “for the purposes of this Constitution, unless otherwise provided, ‘Parliament’ consists of the National Assembly and the President as Head of State”. National Assembly itself is comprised of the elected constituency representatives who are designated as Members of Parliament.

It is the Parliament (and not the National Assembly alone) which is endowed and or vested with all the powers to enact legislation of this country (see section 48(1) of the Constitution). This is why the President, as a member or part of the Parliament is part and parcel of enacting legislation through the authority to assent to a Bill before it becomes a law properly so enacted. Anyway, I digressed a bit, so let us go back to our rail of discourse: a look at what the Constitution demands of the President in his capacity as a member/part of the Parliament.

Section 89(4) of the Constitution says “the President shall be called to Parliament to answer questions at such times as may be prescribed by the Standing Orders of Parliament or on a motion of the National Assembly”. Axiomatically, this also falls within the oversight role of the National Assembly. Standing Order 70 (2) further provides the procedure and mechanics involved in summoning the President to the Parliament to answer questions of national interest.

This constitutional duty of the State President appearing before Parliament to answer some questions was committed by the Malawi Congress Party (a political party) in its 2019 manifesto in the following manner: “Ensure that the President appears before Parliament to answer the people’s questions relating to his office for the sake of transparency and accountability in government affairs” (see page 7 of the MCP 2019 manifesto under the topic: Governance and Public Administration – point number 4).

Since his election as President, Dr. Lazarus Chakwera has so far appeared 4 times in Parliament specifically to answer questions. Today’s appearance should be his 5th time. Comparatively since multiparty democracy dawned in our landscape, aside President Chakwera, it only Dr. Bakili Muluzi who ever appeared in Parliament to answer questions ALTHOUGH HE ONLY APPEARED ONCE. Dr. Bingu wa Mutharika never appeared even once. Dr. Joyce Banda never appeared even once. Professor Peter Mutharika never appeared even once.

From the foregoing, we can observe that the MCP as a political institution, through its then presidential candidate (who is the incumbent President of the country), did not only make a promise to observe this particular constitutional requirement among others, but is also fulfilling the same. The commitment of the incumbent President to comply with this constitutional duty through his periodic appearances before the Parliament for answering questions is monumental and historical while serving as a testament to the commitment to install further dimensions of constitutional order and rule of law in the country.

Further, the President’s commitment to govern solely based on Rule of Law (as one of the cardinal pillars of his SUPER Hi5 agenda) is seen in his deeds. The liberalization of governance institutions such as the Human Rights Commission; the ACB; the Ombudsman; the Courts; et cetra, speak in high tune of the true implementation of the constitutionalism principle of rule of law under President Chakwera’s administration.

This represents what we call positive strides in the correct direction pointed to by the Constitution. Arguably, therefore, it is beyond mere political order.